West Fargo Commission tables award for citywide security camera, access-control contract after procurement concerns

The West Fargo City Commission on a voice vote tabled a planned award for a Genetec‑based security camera and door access project after a public commenter raised concerns about the procurement process.

Trinity Schoff, speaking on behalf of Energy Tech Systems (ETS) during public comment, alleged ETS had been the system’s original designer and had coordinated with city IT since February 2024 but was disadvantaged during the request‑for‑quotation (RFQ) process. Schoff said ETS was asked to lower proposal totals to conform to procurement thresholds, that mandatory requirements were not disclosed until after the submission deadline, and that ETS’ proposal matched the previously agreed scope. “ETS feels they were ultimately misled throughout a long collaboration, denied key information during the RFQ process, and rejected for reasons they believe are inaccurate or unfair,” Schoff said.

City IT director Hyder Howitzer had presented staff’s evaluation, saying the city received three proposals (one rejected) and that staff recommended awarding to High Point Networks because that proposal met the stated requirements and offered the best combination of system design, coverage and cost. Howitzer also noted supply‑chain volatility: manufacturer quotes for components such as RAM and hard drives were valid only for short windows, which limited how long the city could hold vendor pricing.

Commissioners pressed staff on whether legal review had taken place and whether all bidders had the same information and deadlines. A vendor representative explained manufacturer price validity commonly lasts only seven to 14 days now and confirmed the Genetec quote used in the evaluation was valid through April 13, which some commissioners said created urgency.

A commissioner moved to table the item pending legal review and to schedule a special meeting if needed before April 13; that motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission did not set a new meeting date; staff said legal counsel (Mr. Scott) would be asked to complete a review and commissioners would be polled if a special meeting was required.

What happens next: the award remains tabled while city legal staff review the RFQ and the evaluation process. If counsel identifies no procedural defects, commissioners could reconvene (potentially at a special meeting scheduled before the price‑validity date) to proceed with the award; if legal review identifies problems the commission could reopen procurement or take other corrective steps.